Welcome to Gonzales Watch - Blawging the Ex-Attorney General

Senator Arlen Specter (Rep. - Pennsylvania), the GOP’s Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, predicted that U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will resign.

He made the prediction at the Committee’s Executive Business Meeting today.

The former district attorney explained that he has “a sense that when we finish our investigation, we may have the conclusion of the tenure of the attorney general…I think when our investigation is concluded, it’ll be clear even to the attorney general and the president that we’re looking at a dysfunctional department which is vital to the national welfare.”

Last month Specter grilled Gonzales when he testified before the Committee when the Attorney General attempted to explain his position and role in the firing of U.S. Atorneys.

The Vegas casinos must be taking bets and wagers on the ongoing question of whether Gonzales will resign, and if so when.

Given the Justice Department’s non-responsive reply to its subpoena seeking Karl Rove’s e-mails, the Senate Judiciary Committee appears destined to file a lawsuit against over them.

Especially know, when the WaPo is reporting that at least 26 career U.S. Attorneys were considered for losing their jobs.

The only question is when will the lawsuit be filed? Gonzales Watch invites readers to take a guesstimate about the litigation date. Enquiring legal minds want to know!

Marci Hamilton, a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, and former law clerk to retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, has a new commentary that is all current U.S. Attorneys and Assistant U.S. Attorneys need to read.

U.S. Attorney General Gonzales and the White House have tarnished the abilities of career prosecutors to do their jobs with the public’s trust and confidence, she notes.

Hamilton warns that “interfering with U.S. Attorneys’ prosecutorial discretion for political ends demeans the job. If they are political hacks first, and enforcers of federal law second, none of us is served.”

After yesterday’s demand by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Specter that the U.S. Attorney General comply with the May 2, 2007 subpoena that he did not respond to by the Monday’s May 15th deadline, the Justice Department replied late yesterday with a carrot-on-a-stick response. What did they claim to have?

Only one e-mail cc’ing White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove that concerning the firing, hiring, or political issues behind the massive U.S. Attorney terminations.

In practical terms, what did the Justice Department’s response contribute to the ongoing investigation by Congress into alleged politically-motivated White House control of Justice Department prosecutions?

Most would conclude nothing. Nada. Rien. Niente. Zilch. ничего. אפס .لا شي. Nichts. 何も.

In the reply (inset, below) from Principal Deputy Attorney General Richard A. Hertling, he alleged that the DOJ’s Office of Information and Privacy found only “two identical e-mail chains, one in Kyle Sampson’s e-mail account and the other in Courtney Elwood’s account, that are responsive to the subpoena.”

One e-mail addresses a McClatchy newspaper article on the firing of David Iglesias, the former U.S. Attorney for New Mexico, and communications with Sen. Pete Domenici’s office. The e-mail is from the President’s Special Assistant and White House Deputy Political Director Jeffrey Jennings to Karl Rove, White House Counsel Fred Fielding, Kevin Sullivan, Deputy Press Secretary Dana Perino, andGonzales’ ex-Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson. White House Political Director Sarah Taylor is cc’d on the e-mail:

A second e-mail in the chain is, again, from Jennings:

These e-mails, however, do reveal one important detail: they contain Karl Rove’s non-White House “back-channel” e-mail in connection that he used for White House correspondence. That’s a violation of federal law, specifically, the Presidential Records Act whose purpose is to mandate the preservation of all work-related correspondence e-mails.

They also reveal that newly appointed White House Counsel Fred Fielding knew Rove was using his RNC e-mail (kr@georgewbush.com) for White House business. Fielding was cc’d on the e-mail turned over to the Committee. More on that later.

Incredibly, Hertlin notes that it returned Rove’s e-mail and “electronic media” (i.e., his hard drive) that remain the subject of the subpoena “to Mr. Rove’s counsel, Mr. Robert Luskin, in a sealed condition.” The only way for the Judiciary Committee to take another shot at a forensic analysis and review of Rove’s e-mail appears to be litigating this out in court.

Here is the Justice Department’s carrot-on-a-stick response, suggesting there may be more Rove e-mails to come. In fact, Hertling hints that there could be more: “We are continuing to search for documents responsive to the Committee’s subpoena.”